Rybczynski v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2017 HRTO 901

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard Rybczynski

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: July 19, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 901

Indexed as: Rybczynski v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Richard Rybczynski, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to the provision of goods and services, housing, contracts and membership in a vocational association. When the Application was initially filed it was incomplete in that it did not name any respondent. The Tribunal sent a number of Notices of Incomplete Application to the applicant. In response to the Notices, the applicant sent numerous submissions that did not address the issue of naming a respondent.

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application on June 6, 2017 indicating that it appeared the Application was outside the Tribunals jurisdiction as the narrative did not identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code; appeared to be challenging the outcome of an adjudicative decision; and appeared to be challenging a decision to deny benefits on the basis that the decision maker misapplied the rules of the benefits program. The applicant was directed to provide submissions responding to the issues identified in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

3On July 7, 2017, the Tribunal received further submissions from the applicant in which he named the respondent. The submissions highlighted the applicant’s disagreement with decisions made with respect to the benefits he was denied under the Ontario Disability Support Program. The submissions contained a number of decisions made by the Social Benefits Tribunal and also contained a notice of a hearing at the Social Benefits Tribunal.

4The Tribunal may dismiss an application without providing an opportunity for an oral hearing if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application. However, an application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

5In my view, it is plain and obvious that this Application must be dismissed because the allegations relate entirely to the decisions of the respondent in its adjudicative role. In Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 the Tribunal emphasised it is not the role of the Tribunal to sit in review of the decisions of other adjudicative bodies because to do so would usurp the function of the Divisional Court. It would also appear from the applicant’s submissions that he is disputing the calculation of the benefit amount he has received and the denial of certain benefits and the decisions made by the Social Benefits Tribunal about these decisions. The incident the applicant complains of therefore falls into the category of decisions that are made by an adjudicative body in another proceeding and decisions on the calculation of benefits. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of another adjudicative tribunal or to review the calculation of amounts available under a benefits plan. See: Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115.

6For these reasons the Application is dismissed.

order

7The Application is dismissed.